Monday, July 31, 2017

Up In Arms: Radical Trans Critiques of Trans Military Inclusion

by Diane Klein

I first became interested in transgender issues more than two decades ago, as an academic feminist, and then, when I began studying law, as an aspect of gender and legal theory and a pressing civil rights cause. One afternoon during law school, my Feminist Legal Theory seminar at UCLA met outdoors, in the courtyard the law school shares with the philosophy department. As I and other law students opined condescendingly about Title VII and trans issues, Talia Mae Bettcher, then a grad student in philosophy, tapped me on the shoulder and quite literally gave me my comeuppance. A decade or so later, with every self-styled legal feminist using trans people and the legal issues they raise (and face) as metaphors and thought experiments for every other gender-related issue under the sun, Dean Spade did so again, powerfully cautioning those of us who imagine we are progressives and allies to refrain from the production of scholarship for our own advancement that only exploits and misuses the community it purports to serve.

This week's trans issue is trans military inclusion, thanks to Trump's tweets purporting to ban transgender service people yesterday. Although the Joint Chiefs apparently intend to ignore the Cheeto-in-Chief, and the tweets are of dubious legality, they naturally ignited a social media firestorm, among trans people and their allies.

So this is a moment when allyship (for me) means leveraging my privilege to amplify trans voices (instead of putting my own two cents in). Dean Spade, Elijah Edelman, Maria Carmen Hinayon, and Soma Navidson all offer critiques of U.S. militarism and imperialism that shed a different light on the conversation about trans military service.

As a scholar, activist, and Seattle University School of Law professor, Dean Spade has been presenting a radical critique of trans politics, including the fight for trans military service, for some years. In a 2015 interview, Spade summed it up this way:

The military inclusion campaign is not something that we have strategically decided is a good next step for trans politics and it is not something that will improve most trans people's lives. What makes sense is for trans politics to be aligned with anti-war and anti-military movements worldwide. We have nothing to gain for being the new poster children for a U.S. military branded as inclusive because it lets women serve in combat and has openly LGBT service members. This is shoddy window dressing for the realities of U.S. militarism, which is bad for the world and certainly bad for populations, like women and LGBT people, who are targets of sexual and gender violence.

In a televised conversation Thursday, July 27, 2017, moderated by Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!," Spade took on Fiona Dawson, a documentarian and supporter of trans military inclusion, who articulated the now-familiar equalitarian defense of trans service, in which the economic and social forces that push trans people into military service - to obtain housing, health care, a job - are seen not as coercive, but as "opportunities" and immune from criticism. This approach, championed by HRC and others, involves (at best) ignoring the worldwide role and actions of the U.S. military; at worst, celebrating the military uncritically; and consistently neglecting the many urgent needs trans people have in America today.

Prof. Elijah Edelman, who teaches anthropology at Rhode Island College and specializes in ethnographic and community-based studies of trans and LGBT persons of color, had this to say (on Facebook) the day of the Trump tweet:

On celebrating the right of trans people to die for you, but not the rights trans people need to be alive with you: I'm honestly, for lack of better phrasing, "grossed out": by the ways in which my Facebook feed has been littered with pro-military stances and platitudes...because of a tweet? Well-meaning cis (and even trans) folks have been plastering their walls damning the "trans military ban," reposting American nationalistic rhetoric from (maybe?) trans people serving in the military and clamoring for the opportunity to fight for TRANS RIGHTS which, it seems, really only pertains to serving U.S. imperialism. Somehow all of the profound systematic violences against trans folks, particularly trans women of color, just didn't really matter in capturing everyone's attention when it meant we would rally around the right of a trans person to LIVE rather than losing the right to die for the American nation-state's interests. I'm sorry, friends, but trans folks - I - need and deserve better than that. There are already plenty of "trans bans" in place: no federal employment protection, no protection from housing discrimination, no protection for access to a harassment-free education, limited (and maybe again, a complete absence of) health care, and - keeping it super real here - a ban on trans folks of color being valued at anything more than a fraction of a white cis person. I get that this is a super flashy and easy grab: trans military ban! 15,000 impacted! Want to take a guess at how many trans folks are currently homeless? Living under the poverty line? Working low-wage service economy jobs (why does that "service" count less??). I've been patient and tried to see this as an opportunity to educate, but come on, people. Have you asked any trans folks how they feel about the military??? How about what issues could REALLY use some attention? So I ask you, friends, maybe I am even pleading at this point. Before you repost/like/retweet/whatever on the "trans military ban," take a minute and ask yourself, is this an act of solidarity or an easy way to feel like you've done something? These are not easy time and I get that we are tired. But please, do not allow your exhaustion to guide your ethics. Now is a time to really listen closely to what so many trans activists have been shouting about. I promise that if you just take that moment to pause and listen, your next move will be one of solidarity, which is something we all need right now.

I don't support colonialism, imperialism, and military aggression. I loathe war and the culture of dominance and competition. But I understand and respect that some of my trans family members have chosen the path of service in the military to find a higher meaning in their existence. I have nothing but respect for them and I will fight so we can all live, thrive, and make these choices for ourselves.

By speaking against Trump's bigotry against our trans service members, I am not speaking for either military service or patriotism (note: patriotism, in its root, is actually a masculine social conditioning - it came from the same word as "paternal" or father - but I digress). I am speaking against the invalidation, wholesale,of a certain class of people, labeling us as burdens and disadvantages,while throughout history we have proven ourselves as some of the bravest, hardworking, most creative, and smartest people to walk this planet.

I will not encourage my trans family to join the military because personally, I don't see the point of sacrificing your life for a country that does not want you to live in the first place, but if they choose to do so, I will fight for their right to have that choice. I honor your truth and the meaning you have found for your existence. Thank you for who you are and what you do. I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the numerous transgender men who fight and died (while hiding their identity) during the Civil War to defeat the feudalist and oppressive South.

What this boils down to is family and some of us make choices that some of us don't agree to, but we hold on to love because no one else can give that to us as much as each other.

4 comments:

This post goes a lot of directions, and I'm not completely sure what point the author is trying to make.

However, insofar as the author is advocating the position that we should not promote the right of transgender individuals to fully participate in military service because this is promotion of US militarism, I have to respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. Maria Carmen Hinayon is completely correct, equality means full participation in all areas of citizenship and personhood, not having your rights to that equality ignored just because what you want has some side effect that others object to. It is perfectly reasonable to advocate for someone's right to do something that you feel that no person should be expected to participate in.

At the same time, I completely agree that the right to serve in the military is in no way the most pressing issue for transgender people in general. I'm sure there are individuals who are advocating for this form of equality so that they can appear pious while they take away more important rights in other places. We should not be blind to those acts, and such false piety should be properly scolded for its hypocrisy. At the same time, we should not mock those who fight for the rights of others just because we disagree with their chose of priority or strategy. Such behavior should be encouraged and used as a stepping stone towards a more broad form of equality.

I think my point is clear, but let me reiterate it: as an ally, my goal here is to amplify trans voices. Some of those voices are not in lockstep about a pro-military equal opportunity model (to say the least). Some trans people disagree with other trans people about how to understand fighting for access to institutions and occupations that have historically treated trans, non-binary, and/or gender non-conforming people very poorly. Both sides of that debate are worth airing - not just the HRC-approved party line about "equality." Part of what I have learned in this movement is that my personal opinions are not actually the most important or informed here. I'd say the same goes for you, unless you are in fact a trans person. The issue is not false "piety" (a weird choice of words to say the least) - your post suggests we are unanimous in embracing an "equality" model. We are not, and what some of these comments are designed to bring out is false framing of the issue which forces everyone to be "for" or "against" "equality" - and who can be AGAINST equality? The problem is the framing (and the privileging of cis voices and/or trans voices that fit the dominant narrative or counter-narrative, as the case may be).

I agree that we should listen to transgender people on transgender issues.

When someone (transgender or otherwise) is exploiting the plight of transgender individuals to further their own personal goals or policy priorities, they deserve to be called out on that as well.

If we're going to play the "you must be a member of a class to have an opinion about policy that affects that class" game then the only individual you have mentioned (but avoided quoting) who is arguably actually a member of the class affected by the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military is Kristin Beck, and she clearly has the view that she should be allowed to serve. In her words, from the linked article:

"Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy,""Transgender doesn't matter. Do your service.""Being transgender doesn't affect anyone else,""We are liberty's light. If you can't defend that for everyone that's an American citizen, that's not right.""I was defending individual liberty,""I defended for Republicans. I defended for Democrats. I defended for everyone.""A very professional unit with great leadership wouldn't have a problem,""I can have a Muslim serving right beside Jerry Falwell, and we're not going to have a problem. It's a leadership issue, not a transgender issue."

Once again, I posted this piece to amplify the voices and points of view of some under-heard trans folks. Kristin Beck is right up there with Caitlyn Jenner - NO ONE who follows trans military inclusion issues has failed to hear about and from Kristin Beck. No one. I do not need a bunch of Kristin Beck quotes in order to understand the equalitarian argument for trans military inclusion. We're all quite familiar with it, and it is compelling in its own way. But it utterly sidelines a more radical critique of militarism, including but not limited to a trans and radical critique of militarism. What Kristin Beck said, literally any military person could say (and has said). Any elected official could have said it (and many have). (As an aside, having been married to a former Navy SEAL, the suggestion that paid assassins in the hire of the U.S. government are "liberty's light" is pious nonsense - they are more like pro-social sociopaths (this is my ex-husband's affectionate characterization of his comrades in arms, not mine).) It is NOT my view that only those in the affected group have a right to an opinion about policy. Didn't say that, don't think it. What I DO think is that including trans radical anti-militaristic voices, in a conversation about trans military inclusion, is important. Setting up the entire argument on the premise that of course the U.S. military is a wonderful thing, and participation in it is a wonderful thing, and the ONLY question worth debating is whether trans people get to do it - is politically myopic.